public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug target/103069] cmpxchg isn't optimized
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:59:44 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-103069-4-5jEO6YGOeP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-103069-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103069

--- Comment #11 from Hongyu Wang <wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com> ---


For the case with atomic_compare_exchange_weak_release, it can be expanded as

loop: mov    %eax,%r8d
      and    $0xfff80000,%r8d
      mov    (%r8),%rsi <--- load lock first
      cmp    %rsi,%rax <--- compare with expected input
      jne    .L2 <--- lock ne expected
      lock cmpxchg %r8d,(%rdi)
      mov    %rsi,%rax <--- perform the behavior of failed cmpxchg
      jne    loop

But this is not suitable for atomic_compare_exchange_strong, as the document
said

Unlike atomic_compare_exchange_weak, this strong version is required to always
return true when expected indeed compares equal to the contained object, not
allowing spurious failures. If we expand cmpxchg as above, it would result in
spurious failure since the load is not atomic. 

So for

 do
   pd->nextevent = __nptl_last_event;
 while (atomic_compare_and_exchange_bool_acq (&__nptl_last_event,
                                              pd, pd->nextevent));

who invokes atomic_compare_exchange_strong we may not simply adjust the
expander. It is better to know the call is in loop condition and relax it
accordingly.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-02-15  8:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-11-03 19:08 [Bug target/103069] New: " hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2021-11-03 20:53 ` [Bug target/103069] " thiago at kde dot org
2021-11-04 21:25 ` thiago at kde dot org
2021-11-15 11:10 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-11-15 14:26 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2021-11-18  8:31 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-01-24 23:49 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2022-01-24 23:52 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2022-01-24 23:53 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2022-01-24 23:55 ` hjl.tools at gmail dot com
2022-01-25  0:04 ` thiago at kde dot org
2022-02-15  8:59 ` wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com [this message]
2022-02-22  3:36 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-22  3:38 ` wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com
2022-02-22  4:16 ` thiago at kde dot org
2022-02-22  8:21 ` wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com
2022-02-22 18:05 ` thiago at kde dot org
2022-02-22 18:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-02-22 20:25 ` thiago at kde dot org
2022-02-23  3:35 ` wwwhhhyyy333 at gmail dot com
2022-02-23  4:06 ` thiago at kde dot org
2022-04-13  8:18 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-05-06  8:31 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-05-08 12:23 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-103069-4-5jEO6YGOeP@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).